United States v. Michael Alan King

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Michael Alan King

895 F.2d 205, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 2215, 1990 WL 12067

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 15, 1990

Docket89-3436

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 895 F.2d 205 (United States v. Michael Alan King) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Michael Alan King, 895 F.2d 205, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 2215, 1990 WL 12067 (5th Cir. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Convicted on pleas of guilty to five counts of bank robbery, King appeals from the denial of his motion to vacate sentence. Along with various other contentions that do not merit discussion, he asserts that he should have been sentenced under the Guidelines, although his offenses and his pleas transpired long before their effective date.

We have, however, clearly held that when Congress enacted the Sentencing Reform Act it intended the new guidelines, when they were developed, to apply only to offenses committed on or after their effective date. United States v. Haines, 855 F.2d 199, 200-01 (5th Cir.1988). That effective date was November 1, 1987. See United States v. Byrd, 837 F.2d 179, 181 (5th Cir.1988). King “had no right to be sentenced under the sentencing guidelines, as they were not in effect when he committed his crimes.” United States v. Watson, 868 F.2d 157, 158 (5th Cir.1989). “Congress’ clear intent was, in fact, that the [Act] not apply retroactively.” United States v. Stewart, 865 F.2d 115, 118 (7th Cir.1988). King’s assertions to the contrary are meritless.

Next, King suggests that the district court did not adequately consider the equal protection or due process aspects of his argument. King made no due process argument for the district court to consider; the court cannot reasonably be expected to give “adequate consideration” to arguments which it did not hear.

We have, moreover, held that

there is absolutely no constitutional authority for the proposition that the perpetrator of a crime can claim the benefit of a later enacted statute which lessens the culpability level of that crime after it was committed. His culpability is adjudged on the basis of the laws that existed when he committed the crime.

Haines, 855 F.2d at 200. King’s equal protection claim is merely a repackaging of his assertion that the guidelines should be applied retroactively. See United States v. George, 891 F.2d 140 (7th Cir.1989). For the reasons previously set forth, we reject that argument.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Convicted on pleas of guilty to five counts of bank robbery, King appeals from the denial of his motion to vacate sentence. Along with various other contentions that do not merit discussion, he asserts that he should have been sentenced under the Guidelines, although his offenses and his pleas transpired long before their effective date.

We have, however, clearly held that when Congress enacted the Sentencing Reform Act it intended the new guidelines, when they were developed, to apply only to offenses committed on or after their effective date. United States v. Haines, 855 F.2d 199, 200-01 (5th Cir.1988). That effective date was November 1, 1987. See United States v. Byrd, 837 F.2d 179, 181 (5th Cir.1988). King “had no right to be sentenced under the sentencing guidelines, as they were not in effect when he committed his crimes.” United States v. Watson, 868 F.2d 157, 158 (5th Cir.1989). “Congress’ clear intent was, in fact, that the [Act] not apply retroactively.” United States v. Stewart, 865 F.2d 115, 118 (7th Cir.1988). King’s assertions to the contrary are meritless.

Next, King suggests that the district court did not adequately consider the equal protection or due process aspects of his argument. King made no due process argument for the district court to consider; the court cannot reasonably be expected to give “adequate consideration” to arguments which it did not hear.

We have, moreover, held that

there is absolutely no constitutional authority for the proposition that the perpetrator of a crime can claim the benefit of a later enacted statute which lessens the culpability level of that crime after it was committed. His culpability is adjudged on the basis of the laws that existed when he committed the crime.

Haines, 855 F.2d at 200. King’s equal protection claim is merely a repackaging of his assertion that the guidelines should be applied retroactively. See United States v. George, 891 F.2d 140 (7th Cir.1989). For the reasons previously set forth, we reject that argument.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

895 F.2d 205, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 2215, 1990 WL 12067, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-michael-alan-king-ca5-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack